Sunder Lal v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 18.08.2020 Sunder Lal .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Present :

Mr. Vikas Bishnoi, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Gagandeep S. Chhina, Asstt. Advocate General, Haryana for the Respondent/State.

SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) CRM No.19225 of 2020 The present application is for exemption from filing the Court Fee in support of the main Petition.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the Applicant/ Petitioner is permitted to be exempted from filing the Court Fee at this stage, subject to the condition that the same must be filed latest by 16th October, 2020.

Application stands disposed off.

CRM-M No.22291 of 2020 The instant Petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking Regular Bail in case FIR No.126, dated 1st June, 2018, registered under Sections 285, 365 of the Indian

-2Penal Code, 1860 and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Section 148, 149, 364, 452, 302, 201, 120-B of the IPC and Sections 27, 30 of the Arms Act added later on and Section 365 of the IPC deleted) at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad.

2.

The Petitioner was arrested more than two years ago on 23rd November, 2018.

3.

After completion of investigation Challan against the Petitioner has already been submitted.

4.

Two other accused persons, namely Siri Ram and Beeru Ram, have been granted bail by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in CRM-M No.53862 of 2018 and CRM-M No.29040 of 2019 on 11th December, 2018 and 19th November, 2019, respectively, and co-accused Dalbeer was granted bail by this Court in CRM-M No.18805 of 2020 on 4th August, 2020.

5.

The Petitioner stands on a virtually identical footing with coaccused, namely Dalbeer. He was not named in the FIR, and was not even identified by the Complainant when placed in the Test Identification Parade. But subsequently the Complainant gave a Supplementary Statement to the effect that he had come to know about the Petitioner's involvement in the occurrence from "his own sources". 6.

Such belated implication of the Petitioner by the Complainant would not inspire much confidence to justify the Petitioner's

-3further detention for an indefinite period at this stage considering that so far only 01 out of 44 witnesses cited in the Challan has been examined and the trial is likely to take a considerable time in view of the on-going Covid-19 Pandemic.

7.

As such, the Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

8.

Disposed off.

August 18, 2020 (SUDIP AHLUWALIA) Dpr JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No